Fifa loses free-to-air World Cup TV battle

[hybrid_x]

great news.....its almost unbelievable FIFA are publically whoring themselves for money......sad. but then again, clubs are mostly now about brands, marketing, and customers.............greed reigns.

 

[beorhthelm]

No other broadcaster can cover any all day sport without a dedicated channel. That said, why not put the golf on the red button? Doesn't everyone now have digital?

yes, and BBC dont put anything on BBC3 and BBC4 until 7pm, so they could easily push all day sport there (and im sure the typical BBC view wouldnt object to the cricket until 8 or 9pm). i noticed ITV put all their IPL coverage on ITV4 and good it was too. they have more motorsport on there as well, but for some unknown reason dont seem to promote it anywhere.

 

[Deleted member 18477]

I believe the Home Ashes decision is due this year - ie Home Ashes matches may be moved back to free to air...

I'd agree with this move. I thought channel 4's coverage of the 2005 ashes was great and surely the cricketers of the future and kids were excited by this and got into cricket as a result of more people being able to watch it. Sky's coverage is good for cricket though but what is more important? Good coverage or putting it more available to a larger audience? I'd say larger audience for the biggest events.

Same with the Olympics and tennis hopefully (Wimbledon). It inspired me and I'm not going to be the next Freddie Flintoff, Jess Ennis or Andy Murray!

 

[luge]

I'd agree with this move. I thought channel 4's coverage of the 2005 ashes was great and surely the cricketers of the future and kids were excited by this and got into cricket as a result of more people being able to watch it. Sky's coverage is good for cricket though but what is more important? Good coverage or putting it more available to a larger audience? I'd say larger audience for the biggest events.

Same with the Olympics and tennis hopefully (Wimbledon). It inspired me and I'm not going to be the next Freddie Flintoff, Jess Ennis or Andy Murray!

Olympics signed until 2020 on the BBC. Wimbledon is signed till 2018, Six Nations 2017. FA Cup now on BBC until 2018. ITV have french open and tour de france.

ITV and BBC have WC 2014 - this doesn't stop Sky buying the rights and making their channels free to air for duration of a tournament in the future. However - this is very unlikely due to cost.

Cricket not a big enough property - so far - for terrestrial broadcasters to buy sky out of the market. Big affect on the game. Plenty of people in golf complaining about the lack of young talent in the game - now only 1 1/2 tournaments a year on terrestrial.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

yes, and BBC dont put anything on BBC3 and BBC4 until 7pm, so they could easily push all day sport there

Those channels share transponder space in a split with CBBC and Cbeebies. So they would have to stop kids programmes. Can't see that really.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

FIFA earned $1.3bn from media and tv rights from the 2010 World Cup. What is the real market value?!

Their 420 employees earn an average salary of $13k a month and they are a little cash rich.

 

[Deleted member 18477]

Olympics signed until 2020 on the BBC. Wimbledon is signed till 2018, Six Nations 2017. FA Cup now on BBC until 2018. ITV have french open and tour de france.

ITV and BBC have WC 2014 - this doesn't stop Sky buying the rights and making their channels free to air for duration of a tournament in the future. However - this is very unlikely due to cost.

Cricket not a big enough property - so far - for terrestrial broadcasters to buy sky out of the market. Big affect on the game. Plenty of people in golf complaining about the lack of young talent in the game - now only 1 1/2 tournaments a year on terrestrial.

I know cricket as a whole isn't big enough property but the ashes? The biggest test match in the world? I know a lot of people who don't watch any other cricket but do follow the ashes... Same with football (world cup, euros and FA Cup), athletics (Olympics), tennis (Wimbledon) and golf (the open)... Even american football (super bowl). The biggest events in each sport IMO should be on free to air TV.

 

[beorhthelm]

Those channels share transponder space in a split with CBBC and Cbeebies. So they would have to stop kids programmes. Can't see that really.

did not know that. you're right, the nation would turn to bedlam if hundreds of thousands of children were deprived of In The Night Garden, as their mothers lost their sanity. im not even joking.

 

[Sheebo]

Secondly, if you're a real sports fan you WILL have Sky Sports. And if you can't afford £50 a month between your household, then watching live sport is the least of your worries. With the exception of mortgage/rent, food and bills, it should be the next biggest essential on everyone's list.

I'm not even gonna give that the reaction you're after!

 

[beorhthelm]

Firstly, no terrestrial broadcaster makes even 10% of the effort Sky does when it shows an event....

right... what you actually mean is Sky fluffs out and fills 9 hours of TV for every hour of actual sport. personally, while i like some punditry and analysis, i can do without hours of it. i see you think being a sports fan is an elitist, all consuming activity, almost like being an actual sportsman prehaps?

 

[Sheebo]

I'm not on a wind-up. Seriously, other than the necessities I've mentioned, tell me what else is a more important expense than Sky Sports. When you consider how much you'd have to spend to entertain yourself on all those nights per month you watch sport if you didn't have it, it's probably the best value entertainment on the market.

A smile on my daughter's face.

Money to spend on having some form of social life or family time out etc.

Then if you're going by 'luxury' items I'd say my season ticket...

 

[Sheebo]

You can have a smile on your daughter's face for free though, you don't need to dedicate £50 a month towards achieving it. As much as I appreciate your sentiments, think about how much a social life/family time costs you. One day/night out will cost you the same as a month's subscription to Sky Sports. They're practically giving it away. From a financial point of view, it's a no-brainer. It's 31 nights and four weekends of entertainment each and every month versus one meal out that lasts two hours. Would you rather be in Churchill Square with the missus on a Sunday afternoon or settling down for G-Nev's analysis on Super Sunday? I know where I'd rather be.

Yes of course it doesn't have to always cost money but essentially to do some nice things it does end up costing. You'd be surprised at the cost of pretty much everything for a family day out. Say for example something even slightly educational like the sealife centre. Of course this whole argument depends completely on personal circumstances and what cash you have etc. I don't think sky is worth anywhere nr what they charge so won't entertain it. When the channels came to freeview I was delighted until I saw the prices! There are far more important things to spend money on tho. Of course we look at things differently as u don't have children etc. As corney as it sounds, I'd rather spend money on a treat out with family or mates - and gain happy memories. And as I say if I'm allowed one luxury, my £37 a month season ticket posses all over a Sky sub.

 

[Sheebo]

You can have a smile on your daughter's face for free though, you don't need to dedicate £50 a month towards achieving it. As much as I appreciate your sentiments, think about how much a social life/family time costs you. One day/night out will cost you the same as a month's subscription to Sky Sports. They're practically giving it away. From a financial point of view, it's a no-brainer. It's 31 nights and four weekends of entertainment each and every month versus one meal out that lasts two hours. Would you rather be in Churchill Square with the missus on a Sunday afternoon or settling down for G-Nev's analysis on Super Sunday? I know where I'd rather be.

Ps I wish I had money to go shopping btw - like Sky, another luxury you just learn to accept isn't plausible at the moment..

 

[Deleted member 18477]

I appreciate I'll be in a minority on this, but I've thought for a long time that I would like to see every sporting event shown on Sky. It really is a top-quality broadcaster and does justice to everything it shows. In fact, I enjoy watching sports I don't even like, purely because of the quality of the coverage. They have raised the bar so far that the BBC and ITV can no longer even see it. I like cricket, football and F1 and Sky is incredibly good at all three, but I'll also happily watch darts, tennis etc as Sky has made them what they are today. I would now like to see the major football tournaments, the Olympics and Wimbledon eaten up by Sky too, as that would pretty much mean the end for terrestrial channels and live sport. I know most people seem to think having these events on free-to-air channels is somehow important, but I would argue it's not for two reasons. Firstly, no terrestrial broadcaster makes even 10% of the effort Sky does when it shows an event. BBC and ITV are laughable in their efforts, and Sky really puts them to shame. If you're a sports fan, why would you not want by far and away the best station to show your favourite event/match/tournament? Secondly, if you're a real sports fan you WILL have Sky Sports. And if you can't afford £50 a month between your household, then watching live sport is the least of your worries. With the exception of mortgage/rent, food and bills, it should be the next biggest essential on everyone's list.

I do agree and think that sky isn't as bad value for money as a lot think it is...

However, even though I have sky... I wouldn't want the major sporting events... World Cup, Olympics, Wimbledon etc to be on sky. I'd rather have slightly less decent analysis and everyone talking about them at work, family, friends etc. I enjoy that analysis/conversation as much as g-Nev's chat...

 

[Sheebo]

The Sealife Centre is appalling value for money, so kids or no kids it's somewhere I'd avoid at all costs. I've not got a child, but aren't they happy with things like the park and the beach? Is it really necessary to spend loads of money on them, especially when they're little and don't really understand what's going on? I too wouldn't waste my money on shopping, but there are plenty of people in this world who will think nothing of going into Brighton every Saturday and wasting £50+ on clothes. I'm just saying in terms of value for money, I really see subscription to Sky TV as very close to the top of the tree. It entertains the kids all day, it will probably interest the wife, and you get all the latest EPL action beamed into your front room. Everyone's a winner, particularly in the school holidays when the kids can be sat in front of their favourite shows, meaning you don't have to take them out every day and spend a fortune in the process. Looking ahead to the next few years, even if I had a child, I would genuinely sacrifice days out, clothes purchases and even cut down on my food shopping bill in order to keep Sky.

I see your point completely but it's slot easier said then done to spend a whole day costing nothing, esp on a Sunday when you want to do something nice. I'm certainly not spending loads of money on going out etc tho. If I lived on my own or still at home for example, I'd prob get Sky Sports (although negotiate a under half price deal every yr which is easily done). As for other tv, beyond Sky Sports, I feel Sky in general offers very little extra than freeview does now.

To get back on topic, events that are shown on free to air channels, such as Wimbledon, wouldn't get anywhere near the public attention if they were shown on Sky and wouldn't inspire as wider audience as the Olympics or Wimbledon have recently...